Talk:The Story of Islamic Imperialism in India

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

	Literature Portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Books. To participate, you can edit the article attached to this page. You can discuss the Project at its talk page.
???	This article has not yet received a rating on the Project's quality scale. Please rate the article and then leave a short summary here to explain the ratings and/or to identify the strengths and weaknesses of the article.

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject India, which aims to improve Wikipedia's coverage of India-related topics. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page.
???	This article has not yet received a rating on the quality scale.
	This article is maintained by the Indian history workgroup.
More information about this article... ??? This article has not yet received a rating on the importance scale.

[edit] Radical

This was reverted because it was "misrepresenting" the source. I read the source and I want to paste a relevant bit of it:

For this the initiative of the publisher Sita Ram Goel (b.1921)58 was decisive. Goel may be considered one of the most radical, but at the same time also one of the most intellectual, of the Hindu nationalist ideologues. His radical views ensure that at times even the cadres of the Sangh Parivar distance themselves fromhim, for his extremist anti-Muslim tirades are seen by them as an obstacle to experiencing wider social acceptance. Since 1981 Goel has run a publishing house named ‘Voice of India’ that is one of the few which publishes Hindu nationalist literature in English which at the same time makes a ‘scientific’ claim. Although no official connections exist, the books of ‘Voice of India’ — which are of outstanding typographical quality and are sold at a subsidized price — are widespread among the ranks of the leaders of the Sangh Parivar.

I have not thought out my opinion on this but I'm not really sure that the source is misrepresented. That doesn't mean it should be used. Just wanted to comment on this. gren グレン 06:27, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

I have been reading it also. The article is highly POV and basically legitimizes anti-Brahmanical racism in numerous places by whaitewashing the violent racism of the likes of Phule and his ilk. It's basically pure race-hatred and does not belong in neutral articles. Trusteggs 06:35, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

Scholarly sources don't have to be neutral... and a scholarly journal is a notable source. Now, we have to present the work neutrally and it is problematic to present it as fact rather than a viewpoint but because you find an article to not be neutral doesn't mean it shouldn't be included. You would be right in saying that just because one scholar states that he is radical doesn't makes that true, as such. But it is a notable point of view in a reliable source and you should find a compromise on how to include it. You want it removed and the other editor wanted to present it as being true. Find a way that it's included but also show that it is a contested point of view. gren グレン 07:35, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

As I have stated elsewhere, it is not a contested view in reliable sources. It is near-impossible to find a respectable academic who has studied these works and this individual in the first place; one that has done so has been quoted. If a genuine academic - not a columnist - can be found to disagree, and it can be determined that the body of opinion is sufficiently divided, then 'contestation' is the case. Otherwise, not. Hornplease 15:11, 12 March 2007 (UTC)